Plenty of wind in Berkeley today. Some people learned to spell in school. Some people actually went to school and paid attention. And some people could see Bard's posting as a propaganda piece. Lost on the nit wit. Along with facts, reasoning, spelling.

Well it's a good thing that you didn't see what I wore today, it was mismatching socks, you would have probably sent me home from school._________________I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.

The polar bears are starving again. Seems there's TOO MUCH FREAKING ICE for the seals to surface onto the polar bears' dinner plates.

Let's see if we have this straight: because the effects of AGW include everything from cooling to mudslides to drought to hungry polar bears, ANY event proves the existence of AGW.

How convenient.

FOR SALE: One bridge. Used only on Sundays by a little old lady driving to church. It connects Manhattan to Brooklyn over the East River. It's old, so the price is only $10T ... about the same as the cures for AGW ... (or best offer). Send a certified check to the U.N. and meteorologists ... hell, WEATHER ... will become obsolete.

It just amazes me that people who sail in the oceans and bays could blind themselves to the changes going on:

Quote:

SEATTLE (AP) — It didn't take long for researchers examining the tiny sea snails to see something amiss.

The surface of some of their thin outer shells looked as if they had been etched by a solvent. Others were deeply pitted and pocked.

These translucent sea butterflies known as pteropods, which provide food for salmon, herring and other fish, hadn't been burned in some horrific lab accident.

They were being eaten away by the Pacific Ocean.

For the first time, scientists have documented that souring seas caused by carbon-dioxide emissions are dissolving pteropods in the wild right now along the U.S. West Coast. That is damaging a potentially important link in the marine food web far sooner than expected.

"What we found was just amazing to us," said Richard Feely, a scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, who helped collect the live samples. "We did the most thorough analysis that's ever been done and found extensive impacts on marine life in the field from ocean acidification."

This is the broadest and most detailed indication ever that acidification is already damaging native creatures in the wild. It raises many new questions about whether other sea life, too, might already be harmed — directly by acidifying seas, or by subtle shifts in parts of the food chain.

"These changes are happening years earlier than we had projected," said Nina Bednarsek, a research fellow with NOAA who inspected the pteropods to identify shell scarring. "It is really a first indication of what is going on in our ecosystem."

Feely and others already had documented that sea chemistry in many areas off the West Coast, particularly in the Pacific Northwest and Northern California, was changing far faster than initially expected as oceans absorb ever more CO2 from fossil fuels. They also had shown that this chemical change already has killed nonnative Northwest oyster larvae.

Now, they've found severe shell damage on more than half of the pteropods they collected from waters near shore between Central California and the Canadian border. The findings were published today in the British Journal "Proceedings of the Royal Society B."

The shell damage corresponds so precisely to where chemical changes have hit the marine world hardest — specific coastal hot spots in Washington and Oregon, where water wells up from the deep on windy days — that NOAA scientists said they could clearly pinpoint the cause: atmospheric CO2.

Of course, if you google ocean acidification you get a long list of areas where the impacts of climate change have already been identified. Unless your head is in the sand, or some other dark place.

When scientists communicate with the public, they can make a difference. This is particularly true for scientific issues that have significant societal implications and which have become polarized––such as climate change.

Despite the near-consensus among scientists that the climate is rapidly changing, and that human-generated carbon dioxide is a major cause, a majority of the American public remains largely disengaged. Moreover, among the minority who are actively engaged in the issue—i.e. those people who consider and discuss the problem—approximately half have reached conclusions consistent with climate science, while the other half have reached the opposite conclusion, choosing to believe that climate change is not occurring. Given the importance of managing the risks associated with climate change, there is an urgent need for heightened public engagement so that collectively our communities, states and nation can determine how to respond.

Fundamentally, the American public trusts scientists, with nearly three-quarters of adults in the U.S. reporting that they would take the word of climate scientists more than any other source for information on this issue. However, most can’t name a single living scientist, much less a climate scientist. Without that name recognition and exposure, these researchers are not achieving their potential as public educators. Americans want to be informed by experts about the risks and realities of global warming, so they can make up their own minds about the proper course of action, consistent with their values.

One a major roadblock is that the public remains unconvinced that researchers agree about climate change, which impedes any sense of urgency about the issue. Social science research has shown that four key facts influence Americans’ sense that as individuals, and as a nation, we should be doing more. The first is that climate change is happening; second, that is it’s mostly human-caused; third, that it is harmful to humans as well as nature; and fourth, that the problem is solvable.

However, our research has shown that Americans are more likely to accept these facts when they realize that the large majority of scientists also subscribe to them. (Other groups have shown this to be true among Australians as well.) Alternatively, people who incorrectly believe there is considerable disagreement among scientists are much less likely to accept these four key facts. Furthermore, nearly half of all Americans said they would be more concerned about global warming if 90 percent of climate scientists were to agree and state publicly that global warming is happening. Moreover, a recent paper in Nature Climate Change reveals that, when presented with information about the widespread scientific consensus about climate change, people become more likely to accept the facts about human-induced climate change.

Yet, as of May 2011, only 13 percent of Americans correctly understood that the vast majority of climate scientists have no doubt that global warming is occurring and is caused by human actions. A number of studies have shown the rate of consensus among climate scientists about human-caused climate to be 95 percent or higher. The conclusion is also endorsed by virtually every relevant scientific society in the United States, including the National Academies, the US Global Change Research Program, and the National Climate Assessment.

So, if nearly half of Americans said they would believe in climate change if they thought that 90 percent of researchers agreed it was happening, and we know that nearly 95 percent actually do agree, why are so many Americans still skeptical? The implications of this disconnect are clear: the single most important fact that America’s climate scientists can share with the American people is that they have reached near-unanimous agreement—the climate is changing and human activity is the main cause. News events including extreme weather events such as Hurricane Sandy, create an opportunity for every climate scientist to make this important point during news media interviews, letters to the editor of their local newspaper, and calls to local TV and radio news and talk shows.

We encourage you, your professional societies, and your funding agencies to prioritize the debunking of this myth by creating simple clear messages about the scientific consensus, that get repeated often, by a variety of trusted voices including those of individual climate scientists in communities across America. This is a time-tested method of enhancing public engagement in important societal issues. Debunking the myth that there is a lot of disagreement about climate change among climate scientists can promote greater public engagement in climate science and solutions.

Ashley Anderson and Edward Maibach are at the George Mason Center for Climate Change Communication; Anthony Leiserowitz is at the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest document discusses the dangers of a warming world, but also indicates opportunities for adaptation to the sweeping changes to come.

By Bob Grant | April 1, 2014

Climate change is already reducing crop yields and disrupting ocean fisheries, and the continued perturbations will hit poor populations hardest, according to a report released yesterday (March 31) from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The report is the latest from the IPCC, which last released such a document in 2007.

“We live in an era of man-made climate change,” said Vicente Barros, co-chair of the IPCC working group II that authored the report, in a statement. “In many cases, we are not prepared for the climate-related risks that we already face. Investments in better preparation can pay dividends both for the present and for the future.”

The report highlighted current impacts of climate change, assembled with help from hundreds of scientists from all over the globe, including reduced food production, more frequent wildfires, coastal erosion, and droughts.

Future perturbations could include even more drastic reductions in food production—half of the thousands of studies drawn upon to compile the report a 10 percent or more drop in crop yields by the end of this century—more extreme weather events, ocean acidification, economic losses, and humanitarian crises resulting from wars and mass migrations, the IPCC group said.

The word “risk” appears in the technical summary of the 2,600-page report more than 230 times.

Impoverished communities—subsisting on foods gathered or fished from the wild and on crops grown using conventional farming methods—are and will be hardest hit by climate change, with greater warming meaning more severe impacts, the report said. “In a world where a billion people are already going hungry, this makes it harder for more people to feed their families,” Tim Gore of Oxfam International told The Washington Post.

But the report also mentioned opportunities for human communities to adapt to some of the challenges being presented as the climate changes. Beyond limiting the warming by reducing greenhouse gasses, initiating public health measures and making water supplies more flexible are a couple of the ways that humans can lessen the impacts of climate change, according to the report. “Thirty years ago, the previous generation maybe was damaging our atmosphere, [and] the Earth, out of ignorance. Now, ignorance is no longer a good excuse,” said Michel Jarraud, the head of the World Meteorological Organization, at a press conference announcing the release of the report. “We know—therefore, we have the information to make decisions and to act upon this information.”

For the last 10 years the government has encouraged the switch to diesel power by tax breaks. This was on the basis that atmospheric CO2 build up (diesels produce less CO2 than petrol engines they claimed, was the prime concern. Their simple minded object to cut CO2 pollution and control global warming at all costs has been hard hit by an outbreak of unintended consequences.

Professor Frank Kelly (Chairman Dept. of Health Committee on air pollution) claims the unprecedented switch to diesel power could now be responsible for more than 7.000 deaths per year (Britain) because of the pollutants (particulates in particular) which they emit.

(will continue.)

Last edited by GURGLETROUSERS on Thu May 01, 2014 11:55 am; edited 1 time in total

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum